$50 challenge: prove to me that a god or gods exist!

[Ctrl+W]

Originally Posted by superfans124

$50 is not gonna make my brain cells start firing electrodes for such hedious proposal.
originally, i was going to make it a $5,000 challenge, but no one would believe i would keep my promise!

 

[Ctrl+W]

aite, i'm out. this is taking a much longer time than i expected, mostly because of latinlover's preferred slippery slope style of argument (latinlover, until you learn how to make clear, succint arguments, i'll likely not respond to your posts; none of this "A is true therefore B is true therefore C is true therefore D is true therefore E is true therefore F is true" nonsense).

 

[musicguy]

Originally Posted by Ctrl+W

please give me a brief outline. i'm not going to spend a day to read a book because i don't think it would be worth the effort since i'm sure it won't change my position (this is not due to stubbornness or closed-mindedness, but due to vast experiences - i used to be a sunday school teacher).

You haven't tried hard enough. I don't profess to be a spiritual leader so I cannot help you out there. Besides, finding Divinity is a personal process. If you're not even willing to spend the effort to read a book, let alone go through years of spiritual practice/seeking, then you are wasting everyone's time here and this thread is just a practice in debate.

You ask for a quick and simple conclusion in finding God, but it is not like that. It requires earnest effort. If you really truly and earnestly want to find Divinity, you will. Ramakrishna Paramahamsa spent years and years praying for a glimpse of Divinity. Finally he had that Divine Glimpse and was filled with the bliss that that experience confers for the rest of his life.

 

[LatinStyleLover]

Look, if you lack the ability to logically refute my argument, fine, but do not pretend my argument lacks clarity or is not succinct. Your last post just makes you look like a sore loser, to be perfectly honest.

 

[Ctrl+W]

just added this rule: * do not bring up another argument until your current argument is resolved or has reached an en passe. in other words, you must directly address each post before proceeding with new arguments. if you choose to ignore a rebuttal, it will be assumed that you concede. remember that a 100 invalid points still amounts to nothing. latinlover, this applies to you as well. i shouldn't even have to bring up this rule because anyone familiar with the socratic method knows this.

 

[Ctrl+W]

Originally Posted by musicguy

You haven't tried hard enough. I don't profess to be a spiritual leader so I cannot help you out there. Besides, finding Divinity is a personal process. If you're not even willing to spend the effort to read a book, let alone go through years of spiritual practice/seeking, then you are wasting everyone's time here and this thread is just a practice in debate.
this doesn't make any logical sense. why should i try to convince myself to believe in something i dont? as stated clearly in this thread, "prove to me that a god or gods exist." it's not, "read a book to find out why your disbelief is wrong."

Originally Posted by musicguy

You ask for a quick and simple conclusion in finding God, but it is not like that. It requires earnest effort. If you really truly and earnestly want to find Divinity, you will. Ramakrishna Paramahamsa spent years and years praying for a glimpse of Divinity. Finally he had that Divine Glimpse and was filled with the bliss that that experience confers for the rest of his life.
if belief in a god requires years of searching, what prompted you to start and why not start on the millions of other possible paths you could have taken in life? searching for a god is a very specific path. please respond directly to my previous rebuttals as i did to you. if you choose to ignore my responses, i will assume you admit i am right. if you choose to bring up new points, remember that a 100 invalid points still amounts to nothing.

 

[Ctrl+W]

Originally Posted by Ctrl+W

* please make your arguments as clear and easy to understand; don't bullshit with flowery words.
this also means to be specific and to not speak vaguely.

 

[musicguy]

Originally Posted by Ctrl+W

this doesn't make any logical sense. why should i try to convince myself to believe in something i dont? as stated clearly in this thread, "prove to me that a god or gods exist." it's not, "read a book to find out why your disbelief is wrong."

if belief in a god requires years of searching, what prompted you to start and why not start on the millions of other possible paths you could have taken in life? searching for a god is a very specific path.

please respond directly to my previous rebuttals as i did to you. if you choose to ignore my responses, i will assume you admit i am right. if you choose to bring up new points, remember that a 100 invalid points still amount to nothing.

I don't have the time to rebut your claims. I just wanted to present another point of view with my posts and wasn't looking to join a long drawn out debate as it's not something I really enjoy to do. Good luck with whatever you want to do.

 

[Ctrl+W]

Originally Posted by musicguy

I don't have the time to rebut your claims. I just wanted to present another point of view with my posts and wasn't looking to join a long drawn out debate as it's not something I really enjoy to do. Good luck with whatever you want to do.
you do realize this is a total cop out, right? as soon as i asked for specifics, you bail. you mention that ramakrishna spent years to find divinity and finally caught a glimpse of it, but never mention what that glimpse was. anyone here able to explain what this glimpse was?????????

 

[Ctrl+W]

one more note before going to bed:

it takes me only a few seconds to come up with these rebuttals. if you are taking minutes, or don't have a response, what does that say about your belief?

 

[LatinStyleLover]

Originally Posted by Ctrl+W

it takes me only a few seconds to come up with these rebuttals.

I have absolutely no trouble believing your "rebuttals" are the product of a few seconds of thought, or no thought at all.

 

[mjHession]

Originally Posted by LatinStyleLover

In the case of God, believing in him does not harm you and, with few exceptions, causes most to become better people. Failing to believe when there exists so much evidence of his existence seems the foolish choice.
The following is a response to LSL, and not intended for proof of God's existence. If you are referring to the Christian sense of eternal security or some other Non christian God then fine this statement is valid,Else if you are referring to the Messiah Christ as God this is far from true. Biblically speaking Christians are to suffer as Christ did, plain and simple. Christians give up their own life to life for God, in a worldly sense this is quite harmful, I read estimates up to 100 million people have been killed for being Christian, and not just hundreds of years ago, but this is still going on today. Outside of persecution though we still suffer, we must give up our lusts and desires to better understand the desires of God. Using the argument the Christian life is great it not a good apologetic, sure the person may believe you and profess faith, but it is empty non saving faith, the second life happens the person wonders where God is, not understanding true Christianity, and then back to old ways.

Originally Posted by musicguy

Where science leaves off, spirituality begins. Science is the how, spirituality is the why. Nothing leads to intuition. Intuition is a separate process altogether, not related to the mind. You're asking for physical proof of something that's not physical. The proof isn't anywhere, yet it's everywhere. There is a reason why some scientists have a problem justifying divinity. They're using the wrong tools and methods to discover divinity...
The following is a response to musicguy, and not intended for proof of God's existence. If you are referring to Christian God, this is not true, As stated earlier biblical text tells use the existence of God is physically evident, and therefore provable. Else, your differing worldview may allow you to say this.

Originally Posted by eztantz

GOD?
Bad things happen to good people. This does not mean God does not exists. See Rob Bell Rain

Originally Posted by Ctrl+W

i'm under the impression that most philososphers don't believe in god. regarding aristotle's argument in #3, why can't this happen? until that is explained, #4-#6 is invalid.
An infinite chain of causes results in no first cause. QED

Originally Posted by LatinStyleLover

Look, if you lack the ability to logically refute my argument, fine, but do not pretend my argument lacks clarity or is not succinct. Your last post just makes you look like a sore loser, to be perfectly honest.
The following is a response to LSL, and not intended for proof of God's existence. Your arguments are not sufficient sorry but i must agree with the OP. You should study the laws of logic a bit more, and if you are coming from a biblical perspective remember your axioms are not always everyone elses axioms. See Van Til

Originally Posted by Ctrl+W

one more note before going to bed: it takes me only a few seconds to come up with these rebuttals. if you are taking minutes, or don't have a response, what does that say about your belief?
Please remember that my axioms differ from yours, so when I must transfer my logical arguments into a different system it requires much thought. You have been working with your axioms for a great amount of time, I have not. Remember I hold to the axiom, There is one true God, and He has revealed Himself through the Bible. Though this axiom leads me to the conclusion that I should be able to demonstrate His existence from physical evidence. On the topic of Axioms I understand wanting to keep it simple, but some things are needed specifically the two mentioned, to you hold to absolute truth, and moral law. If you don't that is fine, I just need to understand the system you are working in. Also must know if you hold to the law of excluded middle (i do hold to this law and find it very difficult to work without it, but will if you do not hold to it)

 

[MrG]

Originally Posted by Ctrl+W

you can't justify something without proof. that's a self-contradictory statement.

This is one of the most intellectually dishonest statements I've ever read in my entire life. For someone who holds his own rhetorical skills in such high regard, you sure do fail at the art.

A) I wasn't attempting to debate you, I was correcting what I saw as a mistake by another poster, hence the fact that I quoted him.

B) You can most certainly justify believing in something without proof, which is what Pascal's Wager does, or at least attempts to do. It attempts to justify the belief in god without any proof there is a god, and it does a pretty good job. At least learn the major arguments surrounding a topic before you set out to take on all comers and refute their arguments. Even if you don't agree with his premises/outcomes, he provides an intriguing line of argument. Perhaps you are the type that has no respect for people whose opinion differs from your own, but, believe it or not, a lot of people find Pascal's Wager interesting. Not all of those people are theists.

just because you don't understand how a banana is designed the way it is doesn't mean it's designed by god. this is the modern day equivalent of calling the unexplained as sorcery.

It was a joke. I was making fun of the people in the video for their stupidity and zealotry and you for, well, the same.

Are militant, trolling atheists born without a sense of humor and/or the ability to detect sarcasm? If so, I would like to change my "proof of god" from the banana to the possession of both by theists.

Again, please PM with information on how to receive my $50.

 

[bradbury]

can you define the god (or gods) you want to be proven?

 

[AR_Six]